Message text written by INTERNET:[log in to unmask]
>I refer to studies which include appropriate controls and statistical
methods-<

        I myself was trained in experimental social psychology However the
notion that the only valid way of obtaining empirical information about the
world is through studies involving "controls and statistical methods" is
antiquated.

        This definition rules out approximately 70% of social science,
including anthropology, history, much sociological research, not to mention
volumes of research based on clinical data.

        In addition, it would rule out sciences such as astronomy, geology,
archaeology, paleontology, primatology, etc. where systematic observation
rather than experimentation provide the basic research model.

        It is true that a great deal of current work in psychoanalysis
lacks rigor. It is also true that many contemporary therapists are poorly
educated. 

        This business about the "scientific" status of psychology, however,
has been going on a long time. Having observed the debate for many years, I
conclude that no amount of "research" will persuade persons to believe that
psychoanalytic hypotheses about the psyche are correct. 

        "It's still the same old story," and so it always will be. The
reasons for hostility to psychoanalytic ideas will change from generation
to generation. You rarely hear persons today demeaning Freud for his views
about sexuality. In this domain at least repressed impulses and fantasies
have been released from the unconscious.

        Now, there are other domains in which resistance occurs. It's
rooted in rage against the inner life, resistance toward the unconscious
(as usual). By it's very nature, culture prefers to deal with what is on
the surface, insisting that everyone accept the beliefs of the group and
act out the same fantasies. Psychoanalysis deconstructs the group
fantasies.

With regards,

Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D.